I agree with Burrell. It's too complicated. One period of time for everything is cleaner and easier.

One rule for everything

Yeah, one rule to ring them all.

Sorry.

fwiw, I vote six. Go six. Choose six.

And I agree that in the case of truly extraordinary circumstances (which we can't plan for or hypothesise at this point, but will recognise if they smack us in the face with a wet fish) then we can address it as it arises.

and so the Ple minions have been pointed out as bad things

It seems like we don't have consensus on the alternatives. I honestly don't think people who favor six months should be pushing for three months as the alternative if six months does not pass. If you absolutely think that you like six months better than any other alternative, but also strongly feel that three months should be the alternative if six months doesn't pass (rather than four) then you are really saying that you are not happy with two alternatives and want three.

I think the majority of people who don't want six months prefer four to three. If we are only having two alternatives and not using pmmmph then the second alternative should be the one that those who don't want six months favor. Otherwise you are making on heck of a strong argument for pmmph.

In other words you are not gong get a consenus on a ballot of:

1) 6 months

2) Wrong

If you want a consensus on two choices, then the people who favor choice A) shoulld not be part of the decision on what choice B) is unless they are willing to have a choice (C.

If you want a consensus on two choices, then the people who favor choice A) shoulld not be part of the decision on what choice B) is unless they are willing to have a choice (C.

Huh. Interesting.

So since I have embraced 6 as the one true choice, I'm not allowed to have an opinion on what else I prefer should 6 not win?

Uh, Typo, I think you have a bee in your bonnet. You clearly want 4 months, but I don't think it follows that all the people who are claiming they prefer 3 are actually planning on voting for 6.

I honestly don't think people who favor six months should be pushing for three months as the alternative if six months does not pass.

I think anyone who cares about it should get to have a say, even if they plan on voting for the other option. What if someone wants *either* 6 or 3? He/she should get a legitimate airing.

There are, admittedly, a few folks like me who see piss little difference between 3 & 4 and who therefore are keeping out of the debate regarding the second number. But I don't think that someone else has the right to dictate that I--or anyone who cares more--CANNOT have a say.

If you absolutely think that you like six months better than any other alternative, but also strongly feel that three months should be the alternative if six months doesn't pass (rather than four) then you are really saying that you are not happy with two alternatives and want three.

Huh?

I think we need to have 3 or 4 alternatives. It's becoming clear. Which leads into the whole preferential voting/runoff thing. What joy.

If you absolutely think that you like six months better than any other alternative, but also strongly feel that three months should be the alternative if six months doesn't pass (rather than four) then you are really saying that you are not happy with two alternatives and want three.

Color me baffled. This makes no sense at all.

You're saying that people with a clear first choice should not be allowed to have a second choice unless they also have a third choice?

Why?

No, no.

We have 6 definitely. We have 3 and 4 as maybes, and we have the option of writing in a number between 1 and 12 and averaging to the nearest whole number. We just need people who care about 3, 4 or write in to chime in for a consensus.

But I think that, if someone cares about 3 vs 4, regardless of how he plans to actually vote, he should have a say.